PDA

View Full Version : 37818 herecies: Chalcedon



apostoli
08-13-2015, 09:32 PM
This is a split from here ('http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7785-Pentecost-on-37818-s-self-condemnation-in-an-error-of-his-view&p=228943&viewfull=1#post228943')


The Son in the incarnation is understood by all Christians to have two ousia, His human ousia being added to His divine ousia without changing His divine ousia.

No Christian that subscribes to the Confession of Chalcedon (99% or more of all Christians) believes what you propose (the part I have colored in read and particularly the part I have underlined). All consider what you have proposed "His human ousia being added to His divine ousia" to be heresy. Allow me to explain your error...

Below I've quoted the Chalcedon belief for you to examine and reappraise your imaginative invention... Maybe you have simply confused yourself with the terminology...

By definition "ousia" is unchangeable, so the Son could not add a human ousia to his divene ousia as you propose. Ousia is the absolute definition of a category of things - what they are!!! Change the definition and you have something entirely different - a new category of thing - in your case some kind of hybrid.

An ousia (essence) is an attribute/property possessed by a hypostasis (person as a concrete reality). A hypostasis can have attributes/properties added to it. Thus Chalcedon belief holds that the Son (a hypostasis) via Mary (another hypostasis) acquired humanity. Thus the Son retains two ousia, or more particularly is perceived to have two observable natures (duo physes). Physis/es are the terms used at Chalcedon. Basically physis is what proves an ousia. Unlike ousia which can be determined from metaphysical speculation, a physis has observable motion/activity and it is this motion/activity that proves an ousia.

The Confession of Chalcedon

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

37818
08-16-2015, 05:44 AM
I had asked you to explain further with the following post:


You have falsely accused me for things I did not say in the past. I did qualify my statement by "without changing His divine ousia." Further qualification, that He was made one with His Divinity, without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration. That there is a distinct Divine ousia, a distinct human ousia, in one hypostasis. Now please explain what you think is heresy here. Thanks.

apostoli
08-17-2015, 12:33 AM
Further qualification, that He was made one with His Divinity, without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration. That there is a distinct Divine ousia, a distinct human ousia, in one hypostasis. Now please explain what you think is heresy here. Thanks. It is interesting how you change your colors when you are caught out and have nowhere to turn... But unfortunately you seem intent on compounding your original gross heresy...The bit I've colored red is heretical. Remember, it is the Logos that became flesh, not the other way around...

What you present above is the opposite to what you previously professed. This is what you originally stated: "The Son in the incarnation is understood by all Christians to have two ousia, His human ousia being added to His divine ousia without changing His divine ousia".

If you have changed your mind and revoke what you previously stated just make a plain statement admitting to your error for all to witness...


I had asked you to explain further with the following post: You have falsely accused me for things I did not say in the past.Give one example please. Most often it is your own words that accuse you. And herein we have another example of your duplicity...

I encourage you to reread post #1 where I clearly, and unambiguously explained your "original" gross error (to be charitable: your inadvertent heresy). Namely: "His human ousia being added to His divine ousia".


I did qualify my statement by "without changing His divine ousia."Your idea that "His human ousia being added to His divine ousia without changing His divine ousia" simply compounded your error. Obviously you aren't aware that your brain wave also draws on another heresy known as "Eutychianism".

37818
08-18-2015, 05:50 AM
So according to you in becoming human He was not one person in His divinity???

I strongly suggest you stop reading things didn't say into what I said.

apostoli
08-18-2015, 08:27 AM
So according to you in becoming human He was not one person in His divinity??? Nice try at distraction. If you had been attentive of post #1 you'd know the answer to your question!!! It is stated plainly enough!!!!

Apart from explaining the error of your original silliness (heresy), in post #1 I quoted the Confession of Chalcedon subscribed to by 99% plus of the Christian Churches. I'll assume you didn't bother to read the confession. So, just for you, I'll summarise it and highlight the points that answer your question directly...

"We...confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ...consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial (homoousios) with us according to the Manhood...one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably...the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ..."


I strongly suggest you stop reading things didn't say into what I said.I have no need to read anything into what you say, I take it at face value. And on face value you are a heretic. Here, I'll quote you again in full "The Son in the incarnation is understood by all Christians to have two ousia, His human ousia being added to His divine ousia without changing His divine ousia".. The part I've underlined is your primary error. The part in red is your full heresy.

It is obvious you didn't pay attention to my post #3, so for your convenience I'll repeat it in part...


Further qualification, that He was made one with His Divinity, without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration. That there is a distinct Divine ousia, a distinct human ousia, in one hypostasis. Now please explain what you think is heresy here. Thanks.It is interesting how you change your colors when you are caught out and have nowhere to turn... But unfortunately you seem intent on compounding your original gross heresy...The bit I've colored red is heretical. Remember, it is the Logos that became flesh, not the other way around...

What you present above is the opposite to what you previously professed. This is what you originally stated: "The Son in the incarnation is understood by all Christians to have two ousia, His human ousia being added to His divine ousia without changing His divine ousia".

If you have changed your mind and revoke what you previously stated just make a plain statement admitting to your error for all to witness...
_______________

I notice you do the distortion technique regularly - presumably in an attempt to deceive people. To the inattentive you might almost sound orthodox, but on close examination we can all see your intentional duplicity... For example your post #1 in the thread "Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology" ('http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6110-Derail-from-Orthodox-Anathema-Service-on-Christology&p=167217&viewfull=1#post167217')...


. . . begotten of the Father before all ages. . . .
How is this part of that creed not extra Biblical? What Holy Scriptures is it based?

Now I agree that the only-begotten Son was not begotten and not made being the one and the same God with His Father, not being the same Persons in being the one and the same God.

Reason being that God is not begotten and not made.From the viewpoint of 99% plus of Christianity, the part I've underlined is heretical.

37818
08-18-2015, 09:00 AM
You are still making false accusations.


Added note: There are no holy scriptures which teach that the only-begotten Son of God was in any way "begotten" in order to be the only-begotten Son of God.

apostoli
08-18-2015, 09:09 AM
You are still making false accusations.Where is the false accusation? I've simply quoted you exactly. It is unfortunate for you that your own words condemn you!! And as I pointed out 99% plus of Christianity consider your words heretical...a simple fact...

apostoli
08-18-2015, 09:20 AM
Added note: There are no holy scriptures which teach that the only-begotten Son of God was in any way "begotten" in order to be the only-begotten Son of God.But there are many scriptures that always use the term monogenēs when referring to someone's only offspring (ie: only begotten son or daughter). In anycase, there are only two ways for the Son to be Son: 1. by natural generation 2. by adoption. Take your pick...

37818
08-18-2015, 12:02 PM
Where is the false accusation? I've simply quoted you exactly. It is unfortunate for you that your own words condemn you!! And as I pointed out 99% plus of Christianity consider your words heretical...a simple fact...Yes You have quoted me. But the you still make false accusations. I have not professed to hold any of your false accusations.

apostoli
08-18-2015, 07:29 PM
Yes You have quoted me. But the you still make false accusations. I have not professed to hold any of your false accusations.What you wrote is considered by 99% plus of Christianity to be heretical. It isn't an accusation, it is a fact! You now say you do not profess any of the things which you wrote. If so make a clear revocation of what you wrote.

ps: The only accusation I've made concerns what I perceive your deceitfulness and duplicity. Most people don't write something and then deny they wrote what they wrote when they are caught out...

37818
08-19-2015, 07:48 PM
What you wrote is considered by 99% plus of Christianity to be heretical. It isn't an accusation, it is a fact! You now say you do not profess any of the things which you wrote. If so make a clear revocation of what you wrote.

ps: The only accusation I've made concerns what I perceive your deceitfulness and duplicity. Most people don't write something and then deny they wrote what they wrote when they are caught out...

More false accusations.

apostoli
08-19-2015, 11:49 PM
More false accusations.Nothing false about the fact that what you wrote and have admitted to as having written is considered by 99% plus of Christianity to be heretical.

To remind you concerning what you wrote, I'll quote you again in full "The Son in the incarnation is understood by all Christians to have two ousia, His human ousia being added to His divine ousia without changing His divine ousia". The part I've underlined is your primary error. The part in red is your full heresy.

Abu Njoroge
04-18-2017, 05:52 AM
He called himself the son of God and the son of man. There is no place in the gospel were Christ calls himself the only begotten son. The angels were first called the children of God. Man is also the children of God.I am not a christian. myself I believe the concept of only begotten son is a creation of the early catholic church. I do believe when Christ says one must be born again of the spirit. It is a matter of faith to determine what those words mean? To me it means something different than what most christian churches are teaching.


In future, please get permission before posting in this area. Thank you.